Wayne Watling v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Saggerson |
| Judgment Date | 02 August 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 2342 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ15P02428 |
| Date | 02 August 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 2342 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Saggerson
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: HQ15P02428
Mr Nick Armstrong (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) for the Claimant
Mr Adam Clemens (instructed by Weightmans) for the First Defendant
Mr Gurion Taussig (instructed by G4S Legal Department) for the Second Defendant
Hearing dates: 25 th, 26 th, 27 th, 28 th February 2019. 1 st, 4 th March 2019. 24 th and 25 th June 2019
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
In the early hours of Sunday 18 May 2014 the claimant, having visited a friend in Saxmundham, was driving his car on the A12 in Suffolk. At the time he was fit and well. He was 49 years old. He left his friend's at about 1.30am and felt fine. As he approached the roundabout at Seckford Hall he was aware of feeling dizzy. He felt numbness in his right hand and was aware of disturbed vision. He found it difficult to focus. He was also aware that his driving was impaired and for this reason decided to head for the nearest garage to seek help. He knew something was wrong. By this time it must have been about 2.25am.
PC Jackaman was on police patrol duty driving a marked car with SC Moxon. As he approached the Seckford roundabout he became aware of the claimant's car. It was a blue Chrysler, registration number HV55 EWK. He noticed that the car was being driven erratically. Its speed was uneven, the brakes were being repeatedly applied and the car was swerving from side to side across the central road markings. On occasions it came very close to the nearside kerb.
PC Jackaman activated the blue lights on the police car and stopped the claimant. The claimant pulled over as required at the side of the road near the Martlesham roundabout. PC Jackaman approached the claimant to ask him to account for the manner of his driving. By now it was about 2.33am.
According to PC Jackaman the claimant was unable to produce any speech. He was unable to respond to questions and white, shiny phlegm was apparent around his mouth. The claimant's body and arm were shaking. He does not say which arm. There was no smell of alcohol about the claimant or from the interior of the car, and PC Jackaman could not see any signs of white powder. PC Jackaman had to help the claimant switch off his car engine. Even so, not unreasonably, he suspected that the claimant was driving under the influence of drink or drugs and so he requested a roadside breath sample. The testing device and procedure were explained to the claimant. The claimant understood and provided a breath sample. He “ only just” managed it by blowing very gently. The reading was “nil”. As a result, PC Jackaman formed the reasonable suspicion that the claimant's erratic driving was the result of his being under the influence of drugs even though there was no sign of any drugs paraphernalia in the car or about the claimant's person.
As a result, at about 2.37am, the claimant was asked to step out of the car and was arrested for driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs. The claimant struggled to get out of the car and had to be helped by PC Jackaman. He was unsteady on his feet. He was still unable to speak. However, PC Jackaman's impression was that the claimant understood what was being said to him. The claimant was handcuffed and helped into the police car. His own vehicle was secured, together with his possessions inside, and he was conveyed to the Martlesham Police Investigation Centre (“PIC”), arriving at about 2.40am.
In fact, the claimant had had a stroke. It later emerged that the claimant had suffered a brain attack caused by a thrombosis in the left internal carotid artery with subsequent secondary embolization. It is described by Professor Chadwick (neurologist) as “ a complete anterior circulation stroke with occlusion of the internal carotid artery in the neck”. The onset of the symptoms occurred suddenly whilst the claimant was driving. But for the fortuitous intervention of the police at the roadside, triggered by the claimant's erratic driving, it is possible that the claimant would have caused an accident, potentially involving third parties, or remained isolated and unattended at the roadside. Had he presented himself, uncommunicative at a garage there is a good chance he would just have been regarded as drunk or drugged and the police called.
The claimant's detention at the PIC was authorised at 2.49am; he was searched at the PIC custody desk at 2.54am and taken to the PIC's dedicated room (the “intoximeter” room) for the administration of the station breath test procedure. At 3.04am PC Last telephoned G4S (the second defendant) asking for the attendance of a forensic medical examiner (“FME”) for the purposes of there being a medical examination and forensic testing of the claimant for drugs. This medical assessment was not carried out for some hours. The FME (Dr. Klotins) conducted the assessment at about 5.40am or shortly thereafter. It was concluded at 6.05am. As a result, Dr. Klotins referred the claimant to the Ipswich Hospital for investigation for stroke or transient ischaemic accident (“TIA”). The claimant was conveyed to the hospital arriving sometime between 6.15am and 6.30am. The time between the onset of the stroke and his arrival at Ipswich hospital was about 4 hours.
The stroke has left the claimant with what is classed as a “Rankin scale 3” moderate disability. This means he requires help but can walk without assistance (he uses a stick). However, there has been a significant impact on his life; his ability to work and his domestic independence. The claimant is also now unable to pursue his interest in the outdoors, or in motorbikes. He now spends much of his time in the house. He is embarrassed by his disabilities. His claim is that had he been taken to hospital earlier, and had thrombolytic treatment, then he would have had a real chance of achieving a better result at 0–2 or better on the Rankin scale; a better medical outcome would have been achieved and the worst effects of the stroke would have been mitigated.
The claimant does not remember very much of what happened to him apart from isolated snap-shots. He accepts that his recollection is muddled and vague. He has some recollection of being stopped by the police, arriving at the PIC, seeing the FME and arriving at the hospital. He remembers trying to speak but being unable to do so and being unable to think clearly or process what was wrong. He has no recollection of being asked any questions. He confirms, and I accept, that he would have taken thrombolytic treatment had he arrived at the hospital within the appropriate treatment window and been advised to do so.
The Claims
The Claimant brings a claim for declarations and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“ HRA 1998”), alleging that the First and Second Defendants, as public authorities, acted in violation of Articles 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Claims in negligence and false imprisonment have been abandoned. On the balance of probabilities, early medical attention would not have yielded a better result for this claimant.
The first defendant (“the Chief Constable”) is responsible for all the operational activities of Suffolk Police and the officers performing police functions. The second defendant (“G4S”) is a company to which the provision of medical services for the Chief Constable (including the assessment of the condition of those detained at police stations) has been out-sourced.
Article 3 of the ECHR provides: “No-one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Article 8 of the ECHR provides:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
At The Police Investigation Centre (“PIC”)
On arrival at the PIC the claimant was presented to the custody sergeant, Sergeant Ramsey, who opened a custody record (“CR”) at 2.47am.
PC Jackaman said that during the booking-in procedure the claimant was unsteady on his feet and during the subsequent drug testing procedure he was “ unable to speak or communicate and could not answer the relevant questions”. He amplified his written evidence by confirming that from his viewpoint the claimant was unable to give his name or to produce any speech, he was struggling to talk, was unsteady on his feet, unable to get his shoes off and unable to sign documents. PC Jackaman did not describe these problems as a refusal to speak on the claimant's part. During a prolonged wait in the intoximeter room the claimant urinated on himself but was unable to communicate this. Despite this, and what PC Jackaman accepted was “ strange behaviour” and “ obvious signs of agitation” (compared with PS Ramsey's conclusion that the claimant was not agitated), he did not consider that this rang any alarm bells. He said that he had formed the view that the claimant was intoxicated by drugs and had no reason to alter his conclusion. He appreciated that it was essential to guard against assumptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R CSM v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...from Article 3 ill treatment is of the same broad nature. Deputy Judge Saggerson in Watling v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2019] EWHC 2342 (QB) described the Article 3 duty in the context of police custody, at [71]: “This general duty requires that legislative and administrativ......
-
Ms Cheryl Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
... ... As the Court observed in Watling v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2019] EWHC 2342 : ... ...
-
The Rise of the Regulatory Constitutional Welfare State, Publicization, and Constitutional Social Rights: The Case of Israel and Britain
...of appeal 2009. 18 June 2009.Southward Housing Cooperative Ltd. V. Walker EWHC 1645 (Ch) (2015)Walting v. Chief constable of Suffolk. (2019) eWhC 2342 (QB) Israeli cases: Supreme Court appeal Bank Hamizrahi v. Migdal vol 49(4) 221 (1993).hCJ 366/03 Commitment of peace and social justice ass......